because of problems in the theory/algorithms  or in the implementation?

It could be much more simple:

F:=int(A,x=0..z);

F := -2*(2^(1/2)*z^(1/2)-(z*(2+z))^(1/2)+z)/z^(1/2);

limit(F,z=infinity);
		-2*2^(1/2)

This was the output for 'IntegralA' before Maple 9 (for Maple 9.03 and 9.52 I get an awful series in terms of 'Psi' functions)

It could be much more simple:

F:=int(A,x=0..z);

F := -2*(2^(1/2)*z^(1/2)-(z*(2+z))^(1/2)+z)/z^(1/2);

limit(F,z=infinity);
		-2*2^(1/2)

This was the output for 'IntegralA' before Maple 9 (for Maple 9.03 and 9.52 I get an awful series in terms of 'Psi' functions)

Ie by pasting this tree into an ordinary input area with both Classic or Standard worksheet. I do observe this error message when pasting into a 2D input area.

I would say, do not use 2D input...

Ie by pasting this tree into an ordinary input area with both Classic or Standard worksheet. I do observe this error message when pasting into a 2D input area.

I would say, do not use 2D input...

is used by the File > Preferences box, sadly.

I think that except for Mac, Maple does not use the system-wide Java installation.

For most Americans outside the US, America is a continent, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, say. I think that most of the population anywhere hardly knows some Mathematics. And most probably they have never heard about Maple, Matlab or  Mathematica.

On the other hand,  from my experience as ambassador  of  Maplesoft  in Argentina, all these systems are more or less known within hard science academia (Physicists, Mathematicians, some Engineers, etc) in several of the countries of this continent (like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico).

is still a serious regression problem with Maple 12 Classic GUI.

?DFactorLCLM works in Maple 12 Standard GUI only. In Classic ?DEtools[DFactorLCLM] is needed (ie you have to know the package), or from the menu: Help > Full Text Search > Word(s): DFactorLCLM.

Personally, my main use of the Standard GUI is for the help browser...

is equivalent but  a degree less. Perhaps such classification is a bit simpler in terms of the integrands.

This paragraph can be written much more clearly.

If that were the case, in that paragraph it should say "this and such binary routines", ie listing them, it is not much work, instead of something so vague as "certain routines". That paragraph does not exclude other interpretations.

This paragraph can be written much more clearly.

If that were the case, in that paragraph it should say "this and such binary routines", ie listing them, it is not much work, instead of something so vague as "certain routines". That paragraph does not exclude other interpretations.

and may be that you are right, but it is not obvious and could be otherwise. You have to make an interpretation of the  meaning  of this paragraph: "certain routines" may be binary unary or whatever routines. It would be very simple for the writer of this help page to  be explicit. And I do not find any clear reference to this issue in ?zip either.

and may be that you are right, but it is not obvious and could be otherwise. You have to make an interpretation of the  meaning  of this paragraph: "certain routines" may be binary unary or whatever routines. It would be very simple for the writer of this help page to  be explicit. And I do not find any clear reference to this issue in ?zip either.

As stated in ?updates,Maple12,efficiency:

Direct hardware-float callbacks are recognized for certain routines. These can bypass much of the overhead of ordinary interpreted function evaluation resulting in speed similar to that of compiled code.

Which are these "certain routines"? Apparently 'sqrt' is not one of those.

As stated in ?updates,Maple12,efficiency:

Direct hardware-float callbacks are recognized for certain routines. These can bypass much of the overhead of ordinary interpreted function evaluation resulting in speed similar to that of compiled code.

Which are these "certain routines"? Apparently 'sqrt' is not one of those.